If he were "such a good father" why not show a video of him with the kids. You can generally determine how good or bad a relationship is between a parent and their children by their natural reactions to one another. But you just know that it would tell the wrong story for the PTB. What a slimy character and how inaptly named he is.

He looks about as genuine as that pathological liar, Uri Geller. But what if he's saying the truth? I have watched The Conspiracy of Silence and read the book and it is pretty convincing that there was a cover up. And I saw the Marc Dutroux documentary and the cover up was pretty convincing there too. But I'm a nice guy and I can't help but think what if Ricky Dearman has been falsely accused, what a dreadful thing? and this is how these people get away with it, because no one can believe it and even I have trouble believing it too. But this thing is so horrendous that we, and many of us, have to make the decision to keep an open mind and believe that this could be possible, otherwise this hell may go on forever.

If this can be exposed we might discover loads of other things that are related. The 9/11 false flag, which appears to be an inside job done professionals, not a few radicals. And the documentary From JFK to 9/11 seemed to show that WW2 was just big business, as well a set set up the desperate Germans to fight communism and die for the Western ruling class.

Organised crime, the Mafia, and other Mafia type groups in league with the pathogical super rich, appear to be running this world. The Ukraine is getting clobbered because the western ruling class want to steal Russia's European gas markets, as well as weaken it so that they can turn it into a vassal state so they they can steal all its resources too.

The conservative professor and writer, Antony Sutton, wrote the book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Right back at the turn of the century the Western ruling were at it then, trying to destabilise other countries so that they could go in and steal their resources. They have been at it in the Middle East causing revolutions and destroying countries, while fascist and ruthless western backed monarchies go untouched. Millions dying does not bother the Western ruling class. And Paul Craig Roberts says that they are mad and evil enough to destroy the half world in an nuclear exchange if they thought they could gain something out of it.

Everything I have written above would seem crazy to the average person, but it seams to be true. Most of the wars would be gone forever if we remove the ruling class from power. The carbon footprint reduced, population growth brought under control, the oceans recovered, real alternative green energy sources discovered, and the suppressed ones that oil companies have hidden away brought out. People in the third world would get a better quality of life and that sad film on Aangirfan recently about those tragic girls and young women working in brothel cities would be a thing of the past.

'You may say that I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one'. Well, we have to believe we can and then we can. The right are always telling us to be rugged individuals, get out there and cut your muster, be entrepreneurs, take on the world, so let's get them for 1% for terrible crimes they have done and put them in prison - forever!

Before anyone accuses me of being a troll, can I confess to being utterly bewildered by this whole episode - or rather saga - and pretty much confused as to what to believe. How is anyone supposed to make a judgement on this case? I watched the first few videos with the children and was far from convinced by their accusations, maybe because they were so extreme, but then again, maybe because the numbers they were talking about - thousands of babies, hundreds of participants, daily abuses - were so over the top. But as has been often pointed out, the descriptions of the alleged abuse are extremely graphic, and obviously either real or generated by an adult. I find the reactions of the father in the video above very believable and can't see any obvious signs of lying as the post suggests -although the media and judiciary are obviously going out of their way to support this man, which can only make one highly suspicious given what we know of the 'network'. I just don't know what to believe in this case. I know first hand of not only the existence of these paedo/mafia/satanic networks - our beloved Catholic school girls, Ang and Irfan, have pretty much blown away any doubts for those who didn't already know - but it is never-the-less all too easy to call 'rape' - or paedo of Satanist - and dump a pile of mud on the innocent without any proof. I can only but trust Angifan on their judgement - if that's what it is - in this case. The story is entirely plausible, as the evidence and background on this site attest - and yet I remain less than convinced by the mother's case.... (but would dearly love for someone to convince me with some solid evidence, which I don't see in the above video - just a highly traumatised father)

I agree with some of your sentiment however the "interview" is nothing but an extension of judge Pauffleys so called verdict. Its an obvious propaganda piece. No real questions were put to Mr Dearman,,,all highly staged and choreographed.He turned those tears on then off in a very controlled manner.

I have helped the mother since November 2014 and put this together as a 'consolidated case': http://victims-unite.net/2015/04/22/after-bbc-on-radio-4-and-the-victoria-derbyshire-program-where-do-the-whistleblowerkids-go/

I did my own analysis of the interview-- which I hated watching as dearman's HORRENDOUS acting seemed to kill brain cells that I'd really like to have back-- and was able to determine at least two things:

1. dearman was being deceptive and showed signs of deception (blank stares, long pauses, nervousness (heart rate and breathing changes which don't happen when a person speaks naturally and the body's central nervous system is at rest), etc.).

2. dearman made several Freudian slips, unconsciously accusing himself of guilt with no other accusers in sight. It's this second part I'd like to explain a little:

A.) He said that the kids said, "I was selling them to people… I’d been selling them in this satanic cult thing… Not just, they said, by myself, but by, they named 60, 70, 80 people.” The kids never once said that papa sold them; dearman said that himself. Sounds like a Freudian slip. Furthermore, dearman, apparently nervous about being in the hot seat alone, attempts to drag 'the others' into the interview as well: "they named 60, 70, 80 people." If this dragging others into the hot seat with him seems unrelated to someone, we will see it replay itself again.

B.) He said, “[The kids] were showing with their hand movements how I would get their hand on their, on the knives and we would cut the babies’ neck, drain the blood and then drink the blood.” Again, dearman is not only committing another Freduian slip but is dragging others into the hot seat with him. An innocent person would sound something more like this: "They said that I put my hand over their hands and cut..." dearman instead says, "They were SHOWING... HOW I WOULD", unconsciously implicating himself. Then instead of saying that HE would cut the babies' necks with his hand over the kids' hands-- according to the kids since he was talking according to the kids here-- he dragged the kids into the hot seat with him and said, "WE would cut." Don't let this 'scapegoating' get lost on you. dearman is going to do it again.

C.) He said the kids were told under pressure "to recount these allegations of what I’d done… or supposed to have done… as well as all these other people." Anyone catch that? Another Freudian slip: the kids recounted "what I'D DONE." He then corrected himself: "or supposed to have done." Then true to form, dearman again drags others into the hot seat with him: "as well as all these other people."

D.) He outright lied when asked if he'd been abusive to Ella Draper in the past: "I’ve got… apparently got a background of domestic violence. I don’t.” A Freudian slip followed by a lie (he does have a background of abuse of Ella and the children); then dearman finally admits to having abused Ella Draper 'two times, no three times,' said he.

After all is said and done, a thorough investigation needs to be conducted which follows real protocol. The kids do not need to be in the custody of their dad whom they have nightmares about in their present care homes. If he gets custody of them, their story will probably never be heard, and they will either end up dead or will be forced to join the cult before adulthood as they already seemed well on their way to doing.

You make some very good points. If no-one has mentioned selling the children for money before then Mr. Dearman has indeed dropped a clanger.I think another reason he drags "60, 70 or 80 people" into it (I think at one point he mentioned 100) was to make the accusations sound preposterous to those with little knowledge of how these things operate. Perhaps such people could potentially imagine 4 or 5 evil bastards but the idea that such a large number of people organised in such a manner would stretch credulity to breaking point for some.

You may be right about why he mentioned that large number. He is not smart; it would serve to motivate people to look for the kids' videos to hear just what the hell these kids said. On facebook, most people see through dearman's terrible acting and are asking questions.

And yes, I would like to reiterate that not one soul ever mentioned dearman 'selling' the kids. IN FACT, the kids said almost the opposite: they said that people would "do sex to us" and in exchange, THE KIDS would get "sweeties". They did not say there was an exchange between the adults for abusing the kids; they said the adults gave the kids candy after abusing them (to keep quiet, really). dearman said all by himself that the kids said that he was "selling" them. The kids never said that; they never even hinted at it. Apparently, dearman WAS selling them-- a common practice in satanist families where some families get money, rewards, or/and favor for prostituting or 'auctioning' their kids out to sleep with adult cultists (and sometimes non-cult adults who are willing to pay and keep their mouths shut on pain of death or blackmail).

Toward the end of the interview, dearman said, "If I have done something wrong, FIND it; bring it to the table; anything." We're working on it, dear man: http://whistleblowerkids.uk/2015/04/21/bbc-british-cover-up-corporation-savile-paedophilia-pauffley-satanism-vicderbyshire/ (read Belinda's fantastic response to the BBC's request for an interview with Ella).

Also, I just got news from 'J', a friend of Sabine's (http://whistleblowerkids.uk/), who said in part: "We received an email today from a professional forensic linguist. This person is convinced that the retraction was false and has analysed G's retraction statement." They are now waiting for permission to post the analysis.

Thanks, Sabine. They never published that on the original children's testinony videos.

This is airing tonight, I heard: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r40r5. It's another media cover-up of the Hampstead satanic cult. The media is working fast to have different media outlets confirm each others' reports that no satanic-pedophile cult exists in Hampstead. Everyone, check it out (I hope this comment even posts before tonight).

I do not wish to conflagrate the two cases but when you mentioned satanic families "selling" the children to other satanists and paedophiles, it did remind me of similar situations mentioned by Sue Ford (Brice Taylor) in her book, "Thanks for the memories".

satanists selling their children (for money or/and other favors) is standard practice in multi-generational satanism. Other types of satanists may or may not do it, but in multi-generational satanist families, which we have in the case of Hampstead, it is standard protocol.

Thanks Arendale, it was watching Ricky desperately gouging and scraping his eyeball in a manner that nearly brought a tear to my eye (let alone his) and the rest of his desperate performance that finally made the penny drop for me. Some things you just don't want to believe.

Another thing that had been incongruous for me was the case of the Christchurch teacher abusing a 9 year old girl on a school trip and, not only getting off scott free, but also having 20 parents cheering him on from the gallery.

I was looking for that news item and I found this on Veteran's Today. Apologies if it has already been posted. It is the Anonymous leak of all the data provided by Ella and Abraham. Just look at all the detail in the data once it has been written down. No-one would make up such an elaborate lie.

The only thing I find more chilling is the way in which the establishment is desperately trying to cover this up. I've read every book on public relations/ propaganda by Bernays, Lippman, Chomsky, Packard, Ellul, Huxley etc. and that BBC interview stank to high heaven.

The data alone provided by the children is enough to drag every single one of the alleged cultists into a thorough police investigation. To expose the cultists is to expose satanic Britain, so that's why they're trying hard to keep the cultists from being investigated. Thanks for that link to all the data. It helps to establish the allegations of the children, especially for people (like on YT) who swear by all things that the story has to be fabricated. No child or adult can recall all those details if a story was untrue. I'm glad that the penny finally dropped for you.

Sorry to say that one of the kids did breifly mention that he, their father did charge for sex with them, very sadly, however I thoroughly believe the children who are far more eloquent than their father, and far more honest, I also noticed that he (RD) seemed to be confessing and making a lot of freudian slips, he said, killing babies, cooking? and he said um, uh, stammered a lot, thought a lot about his answers, definitely a liar!

The BBC grants interview to satanic child killer ? Is it really new ?If wants some more i know particularly one whose children exposed him too as perpetrator of child murders ... the whole always filmed ...

I have gone beyond the 4.096 characters permitted so I'm afraid this is 2 parts, maybe 3, sorry i can't say it in a few words

It is somewhat sinister to watch this interview knowing what this deranged man is capable of, but sitting around playing the victim! Immediately you just know he's not genuine, you just look at the eyes, if you have a shred of perceptibility you see it and his act gets worse as it goes on. The interviewer is also behaving oddly and the pair appear to be privy to some kind of inside joke with their little smiles here and there and her "there, there you poor man" attitude. Lets face it, an Exclusive interview by the BBC it's hardly farfetched to imagine a presenter from that organisation having knowledge or worse being actively part of child abuse.

She made no mention for example of the medical evidence of the abuse or his previous non molestation charges. The whole interview seems to have been created entirely to demonise both the Mother and her partner and to try to get the masses to feel empathy for this man, who again lets be honest by his own admission, though not proven to being a disgusting incestuous, perverted, Cretin - YET-he is at the very least a violent wife beater.

So with the admission of violence to the Mother on his own part, are we really trying to be fed the angle that this violent psychopathic guy ought to be around his children and that the Mother should be forced into hiding ? Are the BBC saying the children should be left alone with a violent man? If my partner was violent in any way to our kids he would be out before he could say Child Molester, I imagine most women would be concerned about their children spending time with someone violent especially without being there themselves to protect them.

If it were't for the seriousness of the crimes this interview would almost be a comedy or rather a celebration of terrible acting. What I found particularly disturbing though were the fake comments at the end, along with text as if to reiterate the points, almost in a "they live" kind of way. "We should all be sympathetic to the Father" was one highly inductive comment, trying to manipulate the masses who perhaps unknowingly did watch this interview with no prior knowledge of the case, or without seeing the children's own first hand accounts.

Unfortunately we do live in a world where only 16,000 singed a petition against this most foul crime and yet over a million signed one to keep Jeremy Clarkson on topgear, almost everyone has or knows a child they care about so I find it incomprehensible that more people didn't sign it, before it was removed — sod TV lets get real this has to stop, not one child should ever suffer like this. Even if the case was proved entirely fictitious then similar things still go on, probably somewhere in the world right now and we know that for a fact.

......20 years ago people would never have conceived that Jimmy Saville was a child abusing necrophiliac or that Rolf Harris was touching up little girls and yet we know these things are true now, so nothing about this case is unbelievable to me when we live in a world where both those vile men were actually honoured whilst getting away with that behaviour. What the children say in the context of the world we live in now and then, where children, adults and animals are abused daily suddenly becomes believable,you only have to look around.

It even says in the bible thou shalt not lie with any beast (Leviticus) so even back then (some) men were so desperate to knob anything that they must have been abusing animals sexually or why else would it be written, you don't need a law if no one is committing that act, so obviously men were doing sexual things to animals or they wouldn't have felt the need to point out not too, so again is it really far fetched that this could happen or did people stop abusing both animals or children or anyone who can't protect themselves, or is it more likely it has evolved into a highly organised crime and billion dollar industry ? I know how I'd bet

It would also be only fair for the BBC to do exclusive interviews with both the Mother and Sabine Mcneil who I'm certain would be wholeheartedly convincing and much more natural, they wouldn't be acting they would be telling the truth so it would be easy to spot the real liars after all views are aired in the same manner, but of course the BBC don't want people to know the truth especially about a subject so close to them

It's a complete myth that "mental people" are easy to spot, the real psychopaths go unnoticed and undiagnosed because they know just the right things to say, how to 'act' and how to manipulate. His answers did not seem to come from the heart and for that reason this pathetic attempt to get the nation to foster sympathy for this man has failed miserably. Even by airing it above any other case is like an admission of guilt. If this guy is truly innocent why would he need to have his views aired so publicly - I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain will see this.

You're right. As for the BBC interviewing the mother and Sabine, please check out this article where the BBC asked the mother for an interview and Belinda McKenzie sent a most CLASSIC reply (cheers, Belinda): http://whistleblowerkids.uk/2015/04/21/bbc-british-cover-up-corporation-savile-paedophilia-pauffley-satanism-vicderbyshire/. Click on the 'letter' link to read the BBC's letter asking for an interview before reading Belinda's response.

Also, as I said above, Sabine's people have a professional forensic linguist who recently analyzed G's retraction statement and declares that it is a forced and false retraction. (I asked to see a copy of his analysis but probably have to wait.) Sabine's people are waiting for permission to post the analysis. Sabine's people also need lawyers and legal people to help assess the legal status of a transcript based on a restricted video, so if you are a lawyer or legal person or know any, they could use your help: http://whistleblowerkids.uk/.

The retraction videos had also been analysed by a for Met officer: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzy22cCtwpda01ENVdqZU1FVnc/view?usp=sharing which we submitted as part of the Judicial Review. However, we got ridiculous Grounds of Resistance back and the Met alerted Haringey Council who got a barrister along to the High Court. He suggested that all evidence be destroyed. He also took the former Met officer to court over the fact that she had downloaded a document that contained the first name of a sibling of Baby P.

I also noticed Gabriel was extremely uncomfortable during retraction interview, whereas previously he was happy. The sad thing was that they naively believed that the police were going to arrest the perpetrators in the beginning. Also noticed that the police officer was almost relieved to get a retraction, who is paying him? He used leading questions, kept saying, its alright you won't get in any trouble if you've lied. Previously "Steve" couldn't even help Gabriel out with the word zneeze when Gabriel forgot how to say it! Yet suddenly he can completely put words in his mouth, a complete turnaround and most suspicious.

Many thanks to the BBC for setting me straight on this issue. What a joke that the putrid pukes of the BBC have one iota of credibility on this or any other issue. They should give the "poor" man a show, "Rick'll fix it " perhaps?

All of you peole are bloody mad idiots.How do you expet someone to defend him self?If he shouted you would have said he is arrogant so he is guilty.If he had tears you could have said he has crocodile tears.If he refuses to talk you could have said he is guilty this is why he refuses to talk.

for your evil pleassure you only wanted one outcome:For Ricky to come and say I am guilty.

Look at the mirror and look at yourselves.Who are you?The ugly true the cancer of our society.if you are been accused you be outhere screaming blaming the police for frame up, and even lying so to prove your innosense.

Let's all just wait for an actual investigation to be conducted. If dearman was innocent, he would submit himself to an investigation and let the authorities prove it rather than the BBC. He still isn't submitting himself to an investigation nor are he and the other alleged abusers coming forward to truly discredit the allegations by showing their 'tattoos/birth marks' or lack thereof. We can only know the real truth, not from a known actor but from an unbiased police investigation.

dearman continues to use the media to prove his 'innocence' rather than submitting to an official police investigation. Here's another media cover-up, set to air tonight, I was told, to again cover up for the Hampstead satanists instead of allowing the police to conduct an investigation into the children's allegations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05r40r5. If dearman is innocent, why doesn't he let the police prove it rather than hiding behind the media?